<HTML>Don,
> Sorry for the delay but some of us have to go to work each
> day. I will try to give you an answer that you will find
> acceptable.
Thats Okay!
> Firstly you ask do I think all species will eventually die
> out. Well that is a difficult question to really answer but I
> would have to say yes I would guess that given enough time
> and enough Earth changes all will eventually cease to exist.
Accepted.
> You then use an old ploy of "darwinists" to ask ridiculous
> questions such as "<i><b>Do you consider that when the earth
> was created that all the species, both past and present, were
> created at the same time?
Many people do consider that true tho'.
</b></i> You will notice that I have
> accepted this theory as just that a theory. Have we changed,
> have any animals changed , well I think I can agree to that
> as well. What I question and object to is the proof that is
> used to prove the case studies.
All I'm saying is that if you study biology seriously there's no better solution. Simply put evolution works (and can be tested on the basis of the available fossil record and our current understanding of biology) the only alternative is some form of intelligent design (which is based solely on faith or belief and cannot even be tested scientifically).
> But let's get to the real issue to which I think we are
> arguing. Let's use our Giraffe to use as a test case. We
> have two possibilities. One it was born ( or created ) with
> it's long neck or through whatever changes in it's genetic
> makeup it grew a longer neck ( or heck I will even give you
> that maybe it <b>mutated</b> from a different spieces ).
> What I have read are various theories of how it reached for
> higher leaves etc. It is this logic that I object to. I find
> it illogical. To one such as I ( I guess in this respect you
> can call me a creationist ) I accept that the giraffe has a
> long neck, I accept THAT MAYBE it got longer due to a gentice
> change, What I question is the mechanics of the change.
I think there's only one major misunderstanding in what you're saying here. It's not that there were a colony of shorter necked giraffes that consciously thought they needed longer necks to reach more leaves so that they could exploit a niche in the environment. Instead genetic mutations increase variability within the gene pool and enabled novel adaptations to be exploited.
There are good reasons why a longer neck would not benefit the giraffe just by enabling them to feed off taller trees as surely young giraffes wouldn't be able to survive long enough as they could only reach the leaves of their fellow plant eating competitors. Also during the dry season (when competetion for food is most intense) giraffes feed off mostly shorter shrubs.
Currently it is thought that the giraffe evolved from a species of shorter necked deer. A longer neck may have become an enhanced adaptation as male giraffes use their necks to fight one another to compete for female giraffes (sexual selection). Only the dominant giraffes with stronger and longer necks could therefore compete for a mate. Hence the ability to feed off taller trees and see predators from further away would be only consequential benefits for the giraffe. This explanation seems even more convincing when you consider that male necks are on average 35cm longer than female necks.
For more information <a href=""></a>
<a href="[
www.cs.uop.edu] here.</a>
> What you "Darwinists" have to realize is that gone are the
> days where enlightened humans believe in a "god" with a beard
> creating spieces out of the mud. Our minds simply accept
> that there is overall design to our universe.
The point is there is simply NO evidence for an intelligent designer in the universe. It may make more sense to you to view the world in this manner but if you seek a scientific interpretation you still need evidence to base your theory on. Speculation is interesting but if it isn't led by the evidence it doesn't lead us any closer to the scientific reality of what is happening in the world/universe around us.
You say that
> survival of the fittest and adaptation to surroundings are
> the major and maybe only influences to changes and new
> spieces. Since I only question the mechanics that you chooses
> to use as your proof why does it offend you and others like
> you when I suggest that perhaps these changes are being
> controlled by something else.
It doesn't offend me at all Don but you question the mechanisms of evolutionary change but don't question how an intelligent designer causes an effect.
> Did man evolve from a primate ?
Yes. Modern biology at least seeks to answer all of the questions you raise.
Perhaps but what caused the
> primates brain to start to think ?
It's an evolutionary advantage - if you think better than your competitors you have a greater chance of survival.
Where was the start to
> life itself.
Simple forms of unicellular organisms.
Where is the boundary between inanimate and
> animate ?
All life is dependent on the replication of DNA and RNA. Viruses may be considered as inanimate as they exploit the machinery of their host. Anything that can respire and reproduce is essentially alive.
> Why does the DNA act the way it does ?
Due to its chemistry.
Why does
> it replicate itself ?
It doesn't - it requires proteins to do so.
> What drives it ? Why do the various
> components arrange themselves just so ? From what I have
> read it is claimed that it was just a random occurence that
> might never happen again. Well I choose to accept AS A THEORY
> THAT SOMETHING CAUSED IT TO HAPPEN.
Fair enough. The evidence in support of the origins of life is not complete and there are many questions that remain but please do not confuse this with Darwins theory of evolution (the origins of species) for which the evidence is surely as good as conclusive proof?
> Does this make me a creationist ? Well maybe but it is about
> time that yourside started to realize that the silly
> arguemnts against this old side that believed in a white
> bearded "god" are long outdated.
I'm sorry that you consider religious dogma to be more satisfactory than scientific endeavour. As you find the scientific evidence for evolution unconvincing you may like to consider just how greatly modern medicine has profited from true scientific progress as opposed to what creationist thinking has provided us with (zilch).
Cheers,
Duncan</HTML>
